[address-policy-wg] 2007-05 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 ULA-Central)

Hi Shane,

No, it is a different thing (local/RFC4193 vs. central).

This draft (ula-central-01) is already being updated.

The policy proposes to act as one of the central (consider one of the draft
options "central but distributed in several entities", take that as one or
several RIRs) registries.

I need to clarify that this is something that has been consulted for months
with the NRO and the NRO answer was: "fine, but go to each region with a
policy proposal, otherwise we can't do it".

Regards,
Jordi




> De: Shane Kerr <shane at time-travellers.org>
> Responder a: <address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net>
> Fecha: Wed, 2 May 2007 17:03:23 +0200
> Para: "address-policy-wg at ripe.net" <address-policy-wg at ripe.net>
> Asunto: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2007-05 New Policy Proposal (IPv6 ULA-Central)
> 
> All,
> 
> I think the draft this proposal refers to:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipv6-ula-central-01
> 
> Is an early version of what eventually became RFC 4193:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4193
> 
> The RFC does not have any centrally assigned addresses.
> 
> I didn't actually follow the discussion in the IETF about this
> document, so I don't know why the centrally assigned version was
> removed.
> 
> It's not actually clear to me what the policy proposal is. Does it
> intend for the RIPE NCC to act as a central registry for all local
> IPv6 addresses? Does it intend for a special membership category be
> set up for this?
> 
> --
> Shane
> 




**********************************************
The IPv6 Portal: http://www.ipv6tf.org

Bye 6Bone. Hi, IPv6 !
http://www.ipv6day.org

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.